AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and the NVIDIA RTX A400?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process with 13,100 million transistors, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the Ampere architecture on an 8 nm Samsung process with 8,700 million transistors. The AMD chip has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, whereas the NVIDIA chip also has 768 shading units but only 24 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The AMD part includes 12 RT cores, while the NVIDIA part has 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU features 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the smaller bus, the NVIDIA card uses faster memory at 12 Gbps effective versus 6.4 Gbps effective on the AMD chip.

Q: Which GPU has higher compute throughput?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.294 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The NVIDIA RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS FP32 and 2.706 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The AMD chip has a 53% advantage in FP32 throughput and a 206% advantage in FP16 throughput.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has a 28 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The NVIDIA RTX A400 has a 50 W TDP, also requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W. The AMD chip consumes 44% less power according to the TDP figures.

Q: What display outputs are available on each card?

A: The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU provides a single USB Type-C output. The NVIDIA RTX A400 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The NVIDIA card also has a Single-slot form factor and measures 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the AMD card's dimensions are not recorded.

Q: How does the NVIDIA RTX A400 perform in benchmark tests?

A: The RTX A400 scores 22,844 in Geekbench OpenCL and 22,237 in Geekbench Vulkan. In Passmark tests, it scores 5,983 in G3D, 2,557 in GPU compute, 899 in G2D, 87 in DirectX 9, 37 in DirectX 11, 32 in DirectX 10, and 27 in DirectX 12. Its average benchmark score is 6,078, placing it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and NVIDIA RTX A400 represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD chip, built on Rembrandt+ silicon, uses RDNA 2.0 architecture fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process. This allows for a higher transistor count of 13,100 million on a 208 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 63.0M per mm². The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses GA107 silicon with Ampere architecture on an 8 nm Samsung process, packing 8,700 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die for a density of 43.5M per mm².

The compute resource allocation differs significantly. Both GPUs have 768 shading units, but the AMD chip doubles the texture mapping units (48 versus 24) and doubles the raster operations units (32 versus 16). This suggests the AMD design prioritizes fill-rate-heavy workloads. The RT core counts also differ, with AMD providing 12 RT cores versus NVIDIA's 6, though the NVIDIA card adds 24 tensor cores that the AMD chip lacks entirely.

Memory architecture represents another major divergence. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU uses LPDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus, achieving 102.4 GB/s bandwidth across 16 GB of capacity. The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, but only 4 GB of capacity. The memory clock rates reflect the different technologies: 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA.

Clock behavior also differs substantially. The AMD chip runs at a base clock of 800 MHz with a boost of 2700 MHz, a wide dynamic range. The NVIDIA card operates at a higher base of 1417 MHz but boosts only to 1762 MHz. These clock profiles, combined with the different architecture efficiencies, produce distinct performance characteristics across workloads.

The power envelope shows a clear split. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU draws 28 W TDP, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 draws 50 W TDP. The NVIDIA card also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, though both cards require no external power connectors. The NVIDIA card is a Single-slot design with PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the AMD card's bus interface is not recorded.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU and NVIDIA RTX A400 serve different primary functions despite sharing the same shading unit count. The AMD chip, at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, is positioned as a console-class solution with substantial memory capacity and compute throughput. The NVIDIA RTX A400, at the 35th percentile, targets workstation use cases with its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and tensor core support.

For raw computational throughput, the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU holds the advantage. Its 4.147 TFLOPS FP32 output exceeds the NVIDIA card's 2.706 TFLOPS by 53%. In FP16 workloads, the AMD chip's 8.294 TFLOPS represents a 206% advantage over the NVIDIA card's 2.706 TFLOPS. The AMD chip also doubles the texture rate (129.6 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s) and more than triples the pixel rate (86.40 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s).

The NVIDIA RTX A400 counters with its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, enabling multi-display workstation configurations. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU offers only a single USB Type-C output. The NVIDIA card also provides tensor cores, which the AMD chip lacks, suggesting different acceleration capabilities for AI-related tasks.

Memory capacity heavily favors the AMD chip: 16 GB versus 4 GB. This fourfold difference in capacity, combined with a 6.4 GB/s bandwidth advantage, positions the AMD card for large dataset workloads. The NVIDIA card's faster memory clock (12 Gbps effective versus 6.4 Gbps effective) partially compensates but cannot overcome the capacity deficit.

The power efficiency metric favors the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU. At 28 W TDP versus 50 W TDP, the AMD chip delivers higher compute throughput while consuming less power. The NVIDIA card's suggested PSU of 250 W also indicates a larger system power requirement.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU | NVIDIA RTX A400 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 13,100 million | 8,700 million |

| Die Size | 208 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 63.0M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 800 MHz | 1417 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2700 MHz | 1762 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 800 MHz 6.4 Gbps effective | 1500 MHz 12 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | LPDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| TMUs | 48 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 12 | 6 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 86.40 GPixel/s | 28.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 129.6 GTexel/s | 42.29 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.147 TFLOPS | 2.706 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.294 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 28 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Not recorded | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | Not recorded | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x USB Type-C | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Release Date | 2024-12-31 | 2024-04-15 |

| Predecessor | None recorded | Quadro Turing |

| Successor | None recorded | Workstation Ada |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs, and no benchmark scores are recorded for the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU. However, the NVIDIA RTX A400 has nine recorded benchmark scores that can be analyzed against its nearest rivals.

The RTX A400's average benchmark score is 6,078, placing it at the 35th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230, scores 6,077, representing a delta of 0%. The Quadro P2000 scores 6,049, a 0.5% delta, while the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 scores 6,117, a -0.6% delta. The AMD Radeon 760M scores 6,019, a 1% delta. These figures indicate the RTX A400 sits in a narrow performance band, with its closest competitors within 1% of its average score.

The Geekbench results show the RTX A400 achieving 22,844 in OpenCL and 22,237 in Vulkan. These scores are significantly higher than the Passmark results, reflecting different workload characteristics. The Passmark G3D score of 5,983 and GPU compute score of 2,557 indicate the card handles graphics rendering better than compute-heavy tasks.

In legacy DirectX tests, the RTX A400 scores 87 in DirectX 9, 37 in DirectX 11, 32 in DirectX 10, and 27 in DirectX 12. The G2D score of 899 suggests moderate 2D performance. These scores, when compared to the nearest rivals, show the RTX A400 performing within a tight competitive cluster.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins in scenarios requiring high memory capacity. Its 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory versus the NVIDIA card's 4 GB provides a fourfold capacity advantage. This favors workloads involving large textures, extensive scene data, or substantial compute buffers. The 102.4 GB/s bandwidth also exceeds the NVIDIA card's 96.00 GB/s, though by a modest 6.7%.

Compute throughput clearly favors the AMD chip. The 4.147 TFLOPS FP32 output exceeds the NVIDIA card by 53%, and the 8.294 TFLOPS FP16 output more than doubles it. The AMD chip also delivers 129.6 GTexel/s texture rate versus 42.29 GTexel/s, a 206% advantage, and 86.40 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 28.19 GPixel/s, a 206% advantage. These figures indicate the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU dominates fill-rate-bound workloads.

Power efficiency favors the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU. At 28 W TDP, it delivers higher compute performance while consuming 44% less power than the NVIDIA RTX A400's 50 W TDP. This makes the AMD chip preferable for power-constrained environments.

The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins in multi-display configurations. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support up to four displays directly, while the AMD card offers only a single USB Type-C output. This makes the NVIDIA card suitable for workstation setups requiring multiple monitors.

Tensor core acceleration favors the NVIDIA card. The 24 tensor cores, absent from the AMD chip, provide dedicated hardware for AI inference and other tensor operations. The NVIDIA card's FP16 performance of 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) indicates it processes FP16 at the same rate as FP32, while the AMD chip's 2:1 ratio indicates a different precision handling approach.

The NVIDIA RTX A400 also holds advantages in physical design. Its Single-slot form factor, PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, and compact dimensions (163 mm length, 69 mm height) provide installation flexibility. The AMD card's physical specifications are not recorded.

The RTX A400's benchmark scores, while modest at the 35th percentile, place it within 1% of several established GPUs including the GeForce MX230, Quadro P2000, and Radeon 760M. This competitive positioning suggests reliable, if unremarkable, performance across standard workloads. The AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU, at the 50th percentile with no recorded benchmarks, occupies a higher theoretical performance tier based on its specifications.